Many
conceptions of civil society in Vietnam in recent years have been
influenced by definitions of contemporary international organizations
-- the most typical definition consists in the identification of
civil society with “civil society organizations”. As a result,
this abstract concept has been vulgarized and shorn of its rich
dialectical content in terms of its relationship with the State,
which many classic authors have analyzed and emphasized. Moreover,
there has also been a tendency to mystify or instrumentalize this
concept.

Thus, from a
social science
perspective, it is really necessary to redefine the meaning of “civil
society”,
as a scientific concept that could be used as a theoretical framework
in the analysis of the social reality of Vietnam today.

In Sociologie de l'État
(Ed. Grasset, 1979), Bertrand Badie and Pierre Birnbaum have presented two
opposite, typical models of civil society, the first one in which
the State governs the society
(French model), and the second one being a self-organized civil
society in which the State
is only present to a minimum extent (Anglo-American model). In the
view of Danièle Lochak, although this scheme is promising, it is a
pity that those authors
have not proposed a clear definition of civil society for a further
in-depth analysis.1

Before
attempting to propose a definition of the concept of civil society,
we think that it is necessary
to clarify some misunderstandings relating to this concept.

First of all
is the inaccurate idea of the nature of the market
and
civil society,
which holds that the market
is an entirely independent
sphere, lying outside of the political
sphere
and complying only with its own rules, regulated only by the
“invisible hand”. According to this view, the State should not
intervene in the market at all. Hence under this neo-liberal
viewpoint, the notion of an independent and self-regulating market
is transposed to the very idea of the independence and the
self-regulation of the civil society vis-à-vis the State. In
history, it is effectively true that the capitalist
mode of production
originated from the formation of the market.
However freedoms such as laissez-faire
and laissez-passer
rights, ownership and usufruct right, contract rights or a complete
free trade in general
are neither natural nor automatic but have appeared historically
as products of the State's action.2

Karl
Polanyi in the well-known The Great Transformation
(1944) has specified as follows: “Economic history
reveals that the emergence of national markets
was in no way the result of the gradual and spontaneous emancipation
of the economic sphere
from governmental
control. On the contrary, the market
has been the outcome of a conscious and often violent intervention on
the part of government,
which imposed the market
organization on society
for noneconomic ends.”3

Before
Polanyi, Antonio Gramsci himself made a quite similar remark,
criticizing the viewpoint of economic liberals: “It
should be accepted that the free trade system is also itself a
'regulation,’ which bears the mark of the State,
introduced and maintained by laws and coercion: it is the product of
a will conscious of its own ends and not the spontaneous and
automatic expression of the economic fact. Thus the free trade system
is a political
program intended to change, in case of its victory, the leading
personnel of a State
and the economic program of the State
itself, i.e. to change the distribution of the national income.”4

The second
misunderstanding resides in the reductionist distinction
between the public
sphere
and the private
one, as well as in the mechanistic distinction between the political
sphere
and the economic
one. Cao Huy Thuần analyzes
this idea: “Capitalism
flows into that question (what
is public, what is private, where is the boundary between public and
private)
in order to separate economic and commercial activities from the
public sphere,
the State
sphere,
and proclaims that the economic area is not the sphere
of the State,
rather this is the sphere
of private individuals,
and therefore the market
belongs to the civil society. In parallel with this affirmation,
liberalism brings in its ideology, asserting that free competition
grants the self-regulating ability to civil society – under the
condition that there will be no intervention except economic
intervention in economic exchanges. That means that the State should
not intervene here. Saying so, liberal theorists have accurately
described a new state of fact, a new trend which takes place under
the eyes of everybody; but they have raised the description to a
principle of law, as if it originates in the essence of things, of
nature, of a perennial truth. Hence the State is bad, because of its
coercion; civil society is good, thanks to its freedom… In
terms of scientific knowledge,
nothing is more false than that, for one cannot trace a frontier
separating the State and civil society, as well as a frontier
separating the political and the non-political.”5

As Hegel and
Marx have stated, in feudal and pre-capitalist
societies,
the whole society belongs to the State, to the political sphere;
once capitalist
society arrived, economic, social, cultural, religious… spheres
have gradually separated from the political sphere. But, to Lochak,
if from that we deduce that there is an essential difference between
the political and the non-political, that is a “myth”.
Lochak wrote: “Undoubtedly
all is not political, however the political is a constitutive
dimension of human collectives which goes through and impregnates the
whole of the life in society, including our everyday life, and
therefore it is illusory to pretend to carefully separate it from the
rest. As one cannot draw this frontier, to define civil society as a
totality of non-political relations is a falsely conceptual
definition...”6

The third
misunderstanding consists in the view of civil society as a form
of organization,
a definite mode
of social
organization,
or a definite societal
model.
This conception
has confused an abstract idea used for the analysis of social
reality
with a societal
ideal
which people
strive to attain, and thus has impoverished the analytical content
of the concept “civil society” by transforming this latter into a
dream or even a myth. We could use this concept of civil society as
an “ideal societal model” with the aim of criticizing social
realities,
yet we are afraid that this is only a criticism based on a dream
(although very beautiful!) and not yet a real criticism based on the
weapon of rational analysis.

In parallel
with the previous misunderstanding
is a fourth one considering
civil society as an institution
or a social
actor,
thus implicitly transforming civil society, which is a complex
concept containing many social relations,
into a “partner” (of the State), a “counterweight force”
vis-à-vis the State and/or the market,
or an “intermediary” organization (between the State and
individuals) – as if “civil society” is a uniform mass of
people having a uniform point of view, being equal and having no
class division!

In the
Dictionary of Sociology
(1998), Gordon Marshall stated that there are nowadays several
different
definitions of civil society, however authors usually agree to the
following main characteristics
of this concept: (a) this concept speaks of public life rather than
private or familial activities; (b) it lies outside of the family and
the State;
and (c) it exists in a rule
of law context.7
We would like to add a fourth characteristic:
the definition of the concept civil society necessarily should not be
separated from its relationship
with the State.

If one
agrees with the above characteristics,
one can accept that the theory of civil society of Antonio Gramsci is
still today an efficient one, which could be used fruitfully in the
analysis of different
relationships
between the State
and society
in contemporary social
systems, even in contemporary Vietnamese society.
Although Gramsci has developed his ideas in analyzing capitalist
society,
his theoretical
framework of the State
and civil society could be applied accurately in the analysis of
Vietnamese
society
today, which still is a society with class divisions.

Inspired by
theoretical
ideas of Gramsci,8
we would like to propose a concise definition of civil society as
follows (not entirely similar to that of Gramsci):

(a)

Civil
society is a concept
used to indicate the public
social space
lying outside of the State
and the private sphere
of individuals
and families, comprising the whole of institutions relatively
autonomous from the State, and voluntary
activities in such areas as economy, politics, society, culture,
education, mass media, religion, etc. (i.e. including economic
activities, enterprises, and political parties).

(b)

Civil
society and the State form the total social system of a State/nation
(i.e. the State in a broad meaning) in which the State (i.e. in a
narrow meaning) is the instance of exercising the coercion
function, and civil
society is the instance of exercising the hegemony
function or ideological
direction
function
of the dominating class by creating a consensus
among other social classes and strata. Thus civil society has more or
less close and organic relationships
with the State. However at the same time, it has a relative autonomy,
because
without a consensus in the civil society, the State cannot maintain
its ideological hegemony and hence necessarily loses its legitimacy,
and in this case retains only its coercion
function.

(c)

Civil
society is a sphere
in which conflicts of interest
occur,
and thus economic and ideological struggles
between social groups and strata, as well as between the ruling class
and other inferior classes and strata.

(d)

The form
of civil society has appeared only with the capitalist
socio-economic formation, in the context of the corresponding form of
the modern State, i.e. the rule of law. Therefore civil society could
exist only when the rule of law has been effectively established.

Our above
definition of civil society is not a political or jurisprudential
definition, but rather a political
sociological
definition or a political
philosophical
one. This definition considers
civil society as an analytical concept, which means it is abstract
and neutral, and thus one cannot say that it is good or bad, positive
or negative, for this concept doesn't include values or value
judgments. In other words, this term could only be applied to study
and analyze the relationship
between the State and society, and could not be used as a flag or a
mobilizing slogan, for in our opinion, we repeat, it is only an
analytical concept and not some ideal social model. Moreover it is
necessary to recall the remark by Gramsci when he emphasized that the
distinction between the concept of civil society and that of the
State is a “methodological
distinction”
and that we must avoid a reductionist “mechanical
distinction”.9

We can now
clarify the distinction between the two translations used for “civil
society” in Vietnamese: “xã
hội dân sự”
and “xã
hội
công dân”.10

When
distinguishing between “xã
hội dân sự”
(civil society) and “xã
hội công dân”
(literally, “citizen society”), Nguyễn
Trần Bạt argued that “citizen
society” [xã hội công dân]
is a society in which the members are citizens, strictly speaking”.
We agree entirely on this point. However we could not approve his
following distinction: “… if
civil society [xã
hội dân sự]
is a society
which lies ouside of the State,
which doesn't need the State,
then the citizen
society
[xã
hội
công dân]
is the legalization of the civil society [xã
hội dân sự].
(…) Citizen
society
is a society which needs the State and the State should comply with
rules of citizen society in its activities. On the other hand, civil
society is a society which doesn't depend on the State. In other
words, to speak of civil society is to speak of human rights, while
to speak of citizen society is to speak of civic rights. (…)
Citizen society is a society closely connected with the State, with
law; while civil society is a society by itself, not dependent on the
State. But what does civil society depend on? If laws are regulating
means of relations in citizen society, what regulates relations in
civil society? I think that that is the culture.”11

In our
opinion, civil society is effectively outside of the State, but it is
absolutely not a “society
by itself”;
it cannot be a society “not
dependent on the State”
or which “doesn't
need the State”.
Moreover, when we talk about “human
rights”
(in civil society), if there does not exist the crucial role of the
State and the legal system, who will have the full competence or
power to guarantee the respect and the exercising of these rights
inside the civil society? We think that culture alone could not be
the unique regulating factor, although this factor is actually a very
important and necessary one.

Our above
proposed definition of civil society could be understood as formed by
both following meanings: (a) “civil society” in a broad sense,
or more precisely in the conception of Hegel, which emphasized the
characteristic of a community of individuals
or “men”12;
and (b) “citizen society” which stresses the characteristic of a
community of citizens
(citoyen
or Bürger)
in a State/nation.

In legal
terms, “civil society” (in a narrow sense) is the sphere
that is governed by laws concerning civil
life, or more precisely, private law (in contrast with
public law), that means the sphere
of relations
between persons and legal persons (Civil
code, Trade law, Labor law...). When speaking about the concept of
“citizen
society”,
we stress the status, role and relations
between communities
of people regarded as citizens
vis-à-vis the State/nation; however this content
still remains within the general
definition of civil society (in a broad meaning) as we have
elaborated earlier.

On the
individual
level, one could say that everybody
has always to assume three different
statuses in their life: (a) the status of a family member (belonging
to the private
life sphere);
(b) the status of a worker (bread-winner), a customer (when shopping
for example) or member of an association or organization (this is the
sphere
of public
life); and (c) the status of a citizen
(belonging to a State/nation,
and in relation
with
the State/nation).
Even a governmental
official still has to assume all these three statuses: he/she must go
shopping, go to school to pick his/her child up after work hours, and
is not exempt from his/her own civic duties vis-à-vis
the State.
Both the (b) and (c) statuses take place inside civil society.

When
analyzing the relationship
between the market
economy, the rule-of-law State and civil society in Vietnam, Trần
Ngọc Hiên noted that the renovation policy switching to a market
economy starting from 1986 “laid
the first brick”
for this relationship;
after that “the
second brick”
was laid with the establishing of the idea of rule of law (nhà
nước pháp quyền)
in 2001 (in documents of the Ninth National Communist Party
Congress), but until now the “third
brick (i.e. civil society)”
has not yet been laid, to “create
a full foundation for economic, political, institutional relations
in our country”.13

In the
theoretical context of the relationship
between the State and civil society presented in the last section, we
believe that, starting from 1986, the renovation (đổi
mới)
in its essence has been a crucial milestone marking a completely new
process in the relationship
between the State and civil society, although it has been mainly
limited to changes in the economic sphere.
During that time, economic institutions and activities have gradually
been returned back to the civil society sphere
(recognizing business freedom, removing measures of “hindering
rivers and forbidding markets”
– “ngăn
sông cấm chợ”,
equitization of State enterprises…). However
from then until now, many cultural and social institutions (such as
education, health care, book publishing, press…) still remain in
the direct control and management of the State, meaning that these
areas have not yet returned back to the civil sphere (“dân
sự hoá”
in Vietnamese), despite the implementation of policies called “xã
hội hoá”
(“socialization”).

We should
note that the Vietnamese term “dân
sự hoá”
(civilianizing)
that we use here doesn't correspond to the term “tư
nhân hoá”
(privatization) although the content
of the term “dân
sự hoá”
could include measures such as privatization. The mentioning of the
“civilianizing”
issue means that we should address again the problem of structure and
activities of social
institutions14:
the State or the government today is not and should not be the
subject
of all social activities, on the contrary, in the school institution
for example, teachers are subjects of educational activities,15
or in medical institution, doctors are subjects of health care
activities for patients.

But saying
that does not mean that the State has no relationship
with areas such as education or health care; on the contrary, a State
in the modern times should
always assume its responsibility for
the rights of attending schools and health care of people, by
reserving an appropriate proportion of the national budget as well as
providing necessary conditions such as policies, regulations,
building lands... for these areas. Nevertheless the State is not and
should not be the direct actor
of educational or health care activities, these sectors should be
exercised by schools and hospitals. A public school or a public
hospital, although remaining organizations under
the State, should not be considered as organizations in
the State apparatus. Schools and hospitals are not organizations
belonging to the political
institution
like the government, the national assembly or ministries... but they
belong to the educational
institution
and the medical
institution.

In Vietnam,
it is because of the non-distinction between the administrative
or governing function
(of governmental institutions) and the professional
function
which belongs to social and cultural institutions (i.e. belonging to
the civil society) that until today there still exists the phenomenon
that we call “nhà
nước
hoá”
(Statization) or “hành
chính
hoá”
(administratization) among almost all cultural, educational and
social organizations, even among mass organizations and associations.
The characteristics of this situation are exactly the same as the
ones of State and collective enterprises in the pre-renovation period
– only in the renovation policy line, the government insisted on
the separation of the administrative function
from the function
of business among ministries and departments, or the clear
distinction between monitoring agencies and business units.

At last,
concerning the Vietnamese social reality, we would like to comment on
two corollaries among many other ones that we can deduce from our
proposed definition of civil society.

(a) If we
could create a high degree of consensus, civil society activities
will enhance strongly the mobilization of very diverse resources,
abilities and initiatives of social strata into the country's
development, and thus implicitly reinforce the strength and the
legitimacy of the State itself, as well as consolidate national
unity. However, we should
emphasize here that this consensus could only be attained if we could
assume an ideological hegemony
or direction vis-à-vis the civil society by actively establishing
legal conditions and opening up favorable real conditions for the
formation of civil society's institutions, as well as freedom of
various voluntary
activities. The risk of losing this “hegemony”
is that without it, we have left only the “coercion” of the State
apparatus vis-à-vis society. A dynamic and healthy development of
civil society is the very measure of the legitimacy of the State.

(b) Civil
society is an abstract and complex concept, and not an institution or
an organization having concrete forms in the scheme of some definite
social model. It is hard to speak of an orientation towards “building
civil society”, and it is also difficult to elaborate a specific
program for “consolidating” or “promoting civil society”. If
we really want to form a civil society, undoubtedly we should
and
only could talk of the needs of the construction of a rule-of-law
State. Because in the end, it is only in the framework of the rule
of law, strictly speaking, that we could have a civil society.

Antonio Gramsci wrote: “The
ideas of the Free Trade movement are based on a theoretical error
whose practical origin is not hard to identify; they are based on a
distinction between political society and civil society which is
made into and presented as an organic one, whereas in fact it is
merely methodological. Thus it is asserted that economic activity
belongs to civil society, and that the State must not intervene to
regulate it. But since in actual reality civil society and State are
one and the same, it must be made clear that laissez-faire
too is a form of State 'regulation', introduced and maintained by
legislative and coercive means.”
(Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison
Notebooks, edited
and translated by Quentin
Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith,
London, Ed. Lawrence & Wishart, 1971, p. 371)

In our opinion, the Vietnamese
term “xã
hội dân sự”
corresponds to civil
society
in English, société
civile
in French and Zivilgesellschaft
in German; meanwhile, the term “xã
hội công dân”
corresponds to civic
society
or citizen
society
in English (công
dân
means citizen), société
civique
or société
des citoyens
in French and Bürgergesellschaft
in German.